Tuesday, September 25, 2012

EU joins with Islamic states to declare ‘the importance of respecting all prophets’

'Respect' in the OED is defined as ‘deferential esteem felt or shown towards a person or quality’. To be respectable is to be ‘deserving or enjoying respect’; ‘of good social standing or reputation’; ‘honest or decent in character or conduct’. The term comes from the Latin respectus, which was concerned with looking round or back, consideration or regard. Not infrequently since the 11th century the word has denoted subservience: a respecter of a respected. Throughout all Europe, it is concerned with deferential regard or esteem.

And this is what the European Union, in conjunction with the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, the Arab League and the Commission of the African Union, has determined that we should all have for ‘all prophets, regardless of which religion they belong to'.

Of course, the moment the highest article of veneration is a prophet, we know which one they have in mind: we are not being exhorted to respect Haggai. We saw in the demands for a global blasphemy law that they are talking principally of Mohammed: if they had been concerned with all religions equally, this statement would have demanded ‘respect’ for all deities and divinities which, to many Muslims of the OIC, would have amounted to idolatry and blasphemy.

So, citizens of the EU must heed the words of our supranational High Representative
for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (Baroness Ashton), and learn of ‘the importance of respecting all prophets’ which leads to ‘full respect of religion’.

The statement is couched in all the requisite freedom and human rights stuff, and talks of the need for peace, tolerance, cooperation and understanding. But it is essentially concerned with prophetology and religiosity, to the specific exclusion of divinity and, indeed, of philosophical non-belief. In that respect, Baroness Ashton is rolling Europe back to the superstitious darkness of the Middle Ages, as if there had been no Reformation or Enlightenment.

The Christian is commanded to love his or her neighbour: there is no exhortation to manifest ‘full respect of religion’. The limits of syncretism and demands for holiness are clearly set out in Scripture: the entire Canon is a story of the consequences of unfaithfulness and idolatry. It is bizarre that the European Union, the inheritance of Christendom, should unite with Islamic states to expound an orthodoxy of apostasy and blasphemy.

His Grace says ‘orthodoxy’, because the statement reads somewhat like a creed: ‘We share a profound respect for all religions’.. ‘We reiterate our strong commitment’.. ‘We believe in the importance of respecting all prophets, regardless of which religion they belong to’..

In the absence of a definition of ‘religion’, there can be no ‘respect’ for its multiplicity of manifestations. And, indeed, should the Euro-beast move toward a definition of religion, and then attempts to apportion rights and liberties under the guise of an enlightened tolerance of relativist equality, there is no logical end to the official recognition of all manner of weird cults, strange sects, spurious beliefs and pseudo-religions, all of which have to be equal under the law irrespective of the common good and irrelative to the inherent counterknowledge believed or propagated.

The problem with respecting all prophets, of course, as that they tend to disagree: one religion’s divine revelation is another’s false prophecy. While Muslims respect the prophethood of Jesus, they reject unequivocally that he is also priest and king, fully man and fully God. And Christians do not hold the prophet Mohammed to be any kind of prophet at all, any more than they ‘respect’ the revelations of Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, or Charles Taze Russell, the founder of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. A cult is cult.

Except when it’s a sect.

The decision of an increasingly anti-Christian EU to embrace the Islamic agenda to outlaw the defamation of religion is a negation of religious liberty and an affront to human rights. Of course we must all work for peace, tolerance and mutual understanding, but these will not come by supplanting the principles of the Enlightenment with the precepts of Islamophobia. For the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, ‘full respect of religion’ means only one thing.

If the noble Baroness Ashton is intent on obliging His Grace to respect all prophets ‘regardless of which religion they belong to’, doubtless he'll eventually be led back to the faggots and flames. There's nothing new under the sun.

172 Comments:

YG, what are the likely consequences of this nonsense? More laws? More midnight visits by the police to arrest the recalcitrant? Closure of websites that aren't sufficiently respectful of islam? And when is there likely to be a tipping point that brings us a Christian spring; or even an English spring?

No surprise give that this is a gathering of undemocratic regimes, some of whom may have a fig leaf of a representative system or Parliament (EU, Syria) whereas others don't even pretend (Saudi Arabia).

If the declaration was really to show respect for ALL religions, or I am guessing what they are trying to suggest are the "mainstream" religions (i.e. the big ones), then they should refer to Gods and not prophets (who are distinctly below God in the 'pecking order'):

Examples :

Christianity : We have the Prophets of the Old Testament , but ABOVE ALL we have God, the Trinity and especially the focus on Jesus Christ a man, but also God (the mystery of the incarnation).

Judaism- The prophets of the Bible, but most importantly the focus is of one God , ABOVE ALL.

Hinduism- Several Gods, any prophets?

As it is, it is clear that the real intent is to want to prepare the ground for Islamic blasphemy laws into the EU.

The World Council of Churches has been promoting a Syncretist Religion for decades, so it comes as no surprise that the plan for a One World Religion is now being slowly introduced by a potential One World Government.Presumably followed by a World Currency (To sort out the economic ills that currently exist) Obviously this will require tighter control of all earnings & spending, implemented by individual debit & credit accounts in a cash free Global economy under the direct control of a powerful, charismatic Dictator. Who causes all to receive an I.D Mark ( To prevent I.D Theft & provide security of finance) before they can buy or sell Goods or Property etc.Hang on, haven't I read this somewhere?.

Your Grace,This is part of the process to secularise religion into the all encompassing, be nice to every one, group of people.Just like SSM, we are expected to show respect to that which is without respect.

Perhaps worth bearing in mind that this offering is a political statement only, with no binding legal effect, yet is clearly a deferential nod to Islam – hardly in the spirit of Lepanto, but times change I suppose.

Read it in all its glory here: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/132512.pdf

The last line is the deeply moving: 'The only answer to the darkness of intolerance and ignorance is the light of mutual respect,' which I am certain will assuage the various ambassador murdering mods throughout the region.

Islam already respects the Judeo-Christian prophets. This is because Islam recognises Jews and Christians as people of the book. It is because two of the 6 pillars of faith are respect and believe in all of Gods prophets and his books. Jesus is recognised as the prophet who will descend on the day of judgement to lead all back to God.

Respect and tolerance; reading some of the comments to this post it is something that needs to be learned by commentators.

And this is the EU that couldn't bear to spit out any acknowledgement of Christianity as a source of its own civilization.

There is an interesting equivocation buried in this declaration. The Muslims certainly refer to Mohammed. But to whom do these secularist Europeans refer when they say 'Prophet?' These are after all largely men who recognize no God at all; who deny the very existence of transcendent reality. They see religion as accidental to life instead of essential - a primitive manifestation of the the common ethical impulse in man. They are part of modern Europe that once thought as children, and believed. Now they see as men and disbelieve. How then do they respect all prophets?

Interesting that they mention "prophets." For prophets are men and religion is the stuff of men. Does the prophet communicate the words of God to men? They can hardly agree since they deny the existence of God. Whose prophet is he then? He is the prophet of the deity 'man' himself. The respect is not being shown for the truth claims behind the prophet but for the march of man's moral progress in and of himself. This is what each prophet represents. He preaches the words of a god unknown to himself but known to his European betters. He preaches the words of man.

For this is all they see in religion and prophets - a vehicle for man's self-improvement. And they respect prophets in much the same way an adult respects the fantasy games of a child. It isn't respect. It's patronization. To respect all religions is to respect none, for to respect all is to deny the truth claims of each.

"Where is Richard Dawkins when he might be able to say something useful?"

Oddly enough, I know what you mean. Some poisonous bile on that front might come as a (very) temporary relief.

Garry Q:

I don't know if you are yourself a Muslim, but it's heartening to read that Islam respects Jesus and the Jewish and Christian prophets, as well as their "books". We too value God's prophets, but we also understand that not all who call themselves prophet are worthy of that title.

We have guidance as to how to identify such false prophets:

"Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son.No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also." (1 John 2:22-23)

The substantial meaning of that confession is outlined in Colossians:

"The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy." (Colossians 1:15-17)

Now I have to confess my knowledge of Islam is rather limited - I've read quite a bit of the Koran in translation, but I gather that's not the best way. So perhaps, if you have better knowledge, you might be able to clarify a point for me. Does Islamic respect for Christ cover this confession?

Garry, you might be right about some of the postings on this blog being a little 'insensitive', but at least the people here are straight talking.

Your version of the tolerance of Islam doesn't seem to be borne out by, for example, the experience of thousands of Christians who have been forced to flee Muslim theocracies, or indeed the fate of an American ambassador and three of his colleagues.

I am not saying that all Muslims act in such a way as they clearly do not, but how would you explain such things if the book in question is predicated upon respect and tolerance? Something doesn't stack up (and please, no litany of American abuses and Western iniquities, as if violence should excuse violence).

I appreciate the question wasn't directed at me, but the answer, I think would be no. Precisely because Islam sees Jesus as a mere prophet and therefore only a man, not the son of God, which is a different theology all together.

The Bible says of Jesus :

(Philippians 2:5-11King James Version (KJV))

"Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

The Qu'ran says :

"He [Jesus] said: 'I am indeed a servant of God. He has given me revelation and made me a prophet; He has made me blessed wheresoever I be; and He has enjoined on me prayer and charity as long as I live. He has made me kind to my mother, and not overbearing or miserable. So peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life (again)!' Such was Jesus the son of Mary. It is a statement of truth, about which they (vainly) dispute. It is not befitting to (the majesty of) God that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! When He determines a matter, He only says to it, 'Be,' and it is" "(19:30-35).

To try to answer Carl's point, I don't identify anyone as a prophet per se, I just try to pick from ideas which fit with my sense of the world. But them I don't regard myself as entirely secular, either.

However, thinking about it, my degree of suspicion about "religious" figures is directly proportional to a combination of 3 things;

1. How much money and/ or political power they or their church/ sect/ cult have accrued through their position

2. The extent to which their unique "holiness" affords them access to sex which would otherwise not be forthcoming to one of their charms or legal in most countries

3. How much they are prepared to countenance even the notion that they may not have all the answers.

For me this last one is crucial. If God does exist, and is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, the idea that his will and knowledge could in someway be contained in a book or one person's brain seems absurd. As such, we're only ever going to get helpful tasters like "do unto others" - useful tidbits to help us be better people. Claiming all of the answers seems to me to be some kind of self- deification, and it's why so many people find Richard Dawkins so unedifying!

Last night I read a Muslim piece on Jesus. Basically treated Paul as the bogeyman - a Satanic charlatan who made up a lot of stuff on Jesus.

Of course, if they can't say that, then they can't then justify their totally blasphemous and crazy views on Jesus: that he was Aaron's nephew (they've conflated Mary and Miriam), that he wasn't the Beloved Son of God, that he wasn't crucified (as that couldn't happen to a prophet under their theology of power) and therefore not resurrected.

Of course, with a Christian Theology of the Cross, we know that our Jesus is loving enough to submit to these slanders and suffer because of it - oh, and powerful enough not to need our protection even if he didn't want to...

I don't think anyone would argue that the Bible could contain God, or the Torah G-d.

This overlooks the centrality of revelation: that a God who was not merely omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent but also directly interested in us would reveal what it pleased Him to reveal of His nature, providing what was necessary for an appreciation of Him, rather than a full - and perhaps impossible (in our present state) - disclosure.

This the global blasphemy law and other such dictates to come is a very sly and sneaky way of quietly turning Europe into an Islamic state. That's what comes of allowing too may of them to live in Europe. They use whatever ways and means they can to take over. Baroness Ashton would be very foolish to go along with any of this nonsense. Our beautiful Country is Christian and for our sanity we must get out of the EU.

’We condemn any advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to hostility and violence’ they say; yet do not condemn what is clearly stated in the Koran* which is guilty of all of that and more. They have come up with this knee jerk crap of a statement which simply shows how scared they really are of Muslim Rage travelling west: no mention that the ‘rage’ has been orchestrated from the mosques or that murder and mayhem should be condemned or that Egyptian TV aired the crummy YouTube rubbish long after it originally appeared, but waited until it could be linked and used for better impact to the anniversary of 9/11. The Muslim Brotherhood driven OIC, scores yet another propaganda coup in successfully cowering the EU and adds more weight to its argument for a permanent seat at the UN (well if its ok for the Vatican then its ok for them too)

What a bloody shambles the EU is.

*“This Book is not to be doubted. (2:1)“Those that deny Our revelations We will burn in fire. No sooner will their skins be consumed than We shall give them other skins, so that they may truly taste the scourge. Surely Allah is mighty and wise. (4:56)“Believers, do not choose the infidels rather than the faithful for your friends. (4:145)“Believers, take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends. (5:51)“You will find that the most implacable of men in their enmity to the faithful are the Jews and pagans. (5:82)“The Jews say: ‘Allah’s hand is chained.’ May their own hands be chained! May they be cursed for what they say! (5:64)“Had the People of the Book [Jews and Christians] accepted the Faith, it would surely have been better for them. Some are true believers, but most of them are evil-doers. (3:111)“Men have a status above women. (2:228)“Women are your fields: go, then, into your fields whence you please. (2:224)“Men have authority over women because Allah has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because Allah has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them, forsake them in beds apart, and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them. surely Allah is high, supreme. (4:34)“Do not befriend [apostates] until they have fled their homes in the cause of Allah. If they desert you, seize them and put them to death wherever you find them. (4:90)“The true believers fight for the cause of Allah, but the infidels fight for the devil. Fight then against the friends of Satan. (4:76)“Allah is the enemy of the unbelievers. (2:98)“Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. (9:123)“Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you may dislike it. (2:216)“The unbelievers are your inveterate foe. (4:101)“Idolatry is more grievous than bloodshed. (2:192)“Fight against them until idolatry is no more and Allah’s religion reigns supreme.

The EU Resolution is just a rehash of the UN Security Council Resolution 16/18 - just Google UN Security Council Resolution 16/18 and Hitchens if you want even more from the secularists who have been onto to this for a long time!

It is interesting that the OIC aka the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (the world's largest trans government organisation in the world after the UN) is cited by Michele Bachman in her speech last week http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUWFwY4OhaA as one of the most dangerous organisations on earth.

No matter how many hateful examples of non Muslims from the Koran and the Hadiths you post or the countless examples from the past 1,400 years since the time of Mohammed you produce showing Islam to be a cult of violence in a state of perpetual war with the non Islamic world. Many people, in spite of the daily examples they see on the news, will either continue to make excuses or turn you into the hater. Unpleasant facts do not matter to irrational people. Emotions guide their whole thinking process.

Islam is in our national homes now because of massive emigration and they are here to stay. They are here to dominant and they know they can do as they please because our freedoms will protect them.

Our granparents generation and those before them would have never allowed this to happen. Had they faced our future dealing with a stealth Muslim invasion by immigration they would have taken strict and fast action to preserve Western Christian Civilization and made no aplogies.

Surely the very best way in which to "respect all prophets" would be to allow complete freedom of religion so that people can follow the teachings of any man or woman who they think is a true prophet?

Any takers for this suggestion in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan etc. etc. ???

On another point, even where we have major disagreements with Moslems couldn't we show a bit more politeness in the way in which we express them? After all, the tone of some of the comments on this theme is hardly likely to encourage Moslems to read this blog or to think again about the teachings of Christ.

The E.U will use any & all religions to further its own ambitions.Whoever or Whatever is currently in the ascendency will be courted & feted until the trap is sprung & they are of no further use. Because mankind will no longer know what to believe. But like Pilate will ask "What is Truth", when the One who said "I am the Truth" was standing in front of him.

The Church is already seeing false prophets arising with deceptive & erroneous teachings that tickle the ears of the masses.

Post modern false prophets who say "Peace & safety" when there is none. Denying the Judgement of God & seeking to erase His right to be angry at man's evil. Portraying it as a flaw in His character that must not be mentioned.

Put together the pieces of the jigsaw & look at the developing picture folks.The attempt to force SSM on the Church & ban the wearing of crosses at work. The persecution of Christians that dare to stand by the teaching of scripture & the gagging of any voice raised in protest.All the World Religions Jockey for positions of supremacy. Blindly they think that their's will be the chosen one, but when the time is right, all will be discarded by the Beast & the False prophet.Only the Remnant, plucked from the fire will remain. Pray for Revival & discernment while there is still time.

If this article about the EU declaring "the importance of respecting all prophets" and caving into their fear of Islam isn't bleak enough a warning for the future of Europe. President Obama said this in his UN speech today:

"... the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam...."

There goes the 1st Amendment in the USA Constitution out the window. This man just said that we can't say what we want about a founder of a religion, specifically Islam. It's unbelievable.

In his speech he also blamed the crappy "movie" on Youtube about Mohammed as the basis for "outraged" Muslims attacking the USA Embassy in Cairo and the killing of the USA Embassador in Benghazi on September 11, 2012.

Obama is a flagrant liar. The CIA, the FBI, the USA State Department, and even the Lybian government have proof which they gave Obanma last week that the attack, which killed the Ambassador and three others, was a planned and well organized attack by al Quaeda and there was no mob protesting that stupid movie. The attacks on the USA Embassy in Cairo on September 11 were organized by the Muslim Brotherhood.

I was surprised Obama didn't get on the floor and bow to Mecca after this disgusting speech.

Will all this really matter after tomorrow when the Crown Nominations Commission decides to stage 'The Bishop's gambit' live, to see if it really is true that most of the Anglican bishops do not believe in God and that a knowledgeable person like yourself has the unenviable task of explaining why it is possible, neigh, credible even, for an agnostic or atheist or just a humble druid to be named the religious leader of the Church of England.

Ooh how much i miss the joys of Yes Minister..now that was real prophecy and insight for you!!!

Your Grace. The importance of respecting prophets, eh. So, this is just a nice tidying up exercise in protocol then. We shall be nice to Islam, it is now official. Totally meaningless in the real world, but apparently requisite in the world of diplomacy. Same way that if you invite your neighbour in, you make sure the room you put him in is at least warm. And if you don’t fully trust your neighbour, you still won’t leave him alone with your valuables or your daughter. That’s not going to change…

And what are European Christian leaders saying about this EU nonsense? What about the candidates for AoC? It would be a pleasant shock if a high ranking Churchman (that is one with a physical presence) said something unambiguously critical of this statement and gave it the Cranmer treatment.

This is just one more example for the Swiss shake their heads in disbelief and thank God their country never joined the EU.

@ Dodo

You've jumped on my back for sayimg similar things here about Islam's brutality over the past 1,400 years. Nice to see you post the Holy Father himself quoting a first hand account of Islamic Jihad by an Eastern Orthodox Christian Byzantine Emperor who was on the front lines facing the wrath of the armies of Islam 700 years ago.

You forgot to mention the riots Pope John Paul II's Regensburg remarks set off all over the Islamic world. I seem to recall seeing a news story here on EWTN of Catholics having to walk a gauntlet of British Muslims protesting outside Westminster Cathedral (the RC Cathedral) in London with these Muslims brandishing threatening placards and screamed insults at the Church and the Pope.

St Dominic was not a prophet. He is regarded as a "saint" by Roman Catholics. Protestants call him "St Dominic" so that Catholics will know who we mean.

I don't know enough about him to judge whether or not he should be regarded as a saint and, in any case, my opinion doesn't matter (and neither does the Pope's) only God's does.

However, you are very forthright in your condemnation of him. The Wikipedia article about him implies that there is little evidence to link him to the Inquisition. That may or may not be true but not many Christians (apart from a few Catholics) would pay much attention to St Dominic's teachings and even Catholics would not treat them as divinely inspired.

Be strong and of a good courage: for unto this people shalt thou divide for an inheritance the land, which I sware unto their fathers to give them. Only be thou strong and very courageous, that thou mayest observe to do according to all the law, which Moses my servant commanded thee: turn not from it to the right hand or to the left, that thou mayest prosper whithersoever thou goest. This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success. Have not I commanded thee? Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the LORD thy God is with thee whithersoever thou goest. Remember the word which Moses the servant of the LORD commanded you, saying, The LORD your God hath given you rest, and hath given you this land. Your wives, your little ones, and your cattle, shall remain in the land which Moses gave you on this side Jordan; but ye shall pass before your brethren armed, all the mighty men of valor, and help them; Until the LORD have given your brethren rest, as he hath given you, and they also have possessed the land which the LORD your God giveth them: then ye shall return unto the land of your possession, and enjoy it, which Moses the LORD's servant gave you on this side Jordan toward the sunrising. And they answered Joshua, saying, All that thou commandest us we will do, and whithersoever thou sendest us, we will go. According as we hearkened unto Moses in all things, so will we hearken unto thee: only the LORD thy God be with thee, as he was with Moses. Whosoever he be that doth rebel against thy commandment, and will not hearken unto thy words in all that thou commandest him, he shall be put to death: only be strong and of a good courage. And Joshua gathered all the tribes of Israel to Shechem, and called for the elders of Israel, and for their heads, and for their judges, and for their officers; and they presented themselves before God. And I have given you a land for which ye did not labor, and cities which ye built not, and ye dwell in them; of the vineyards and oliveyards which ye planted not do ye eat. Now therefore fear the LORD, and serve him in sincerity and in truth: and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt; and serve ye the LORD. And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: BUT AS FOR ME AND MY HOUSE, WE WILL SERVE THE LORD. And the people answered and said, God forbid that we should forsake the LORD, to serve other gods; For the LORD our God, he it is that brought us up and our fathers out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage, and which did those great signs in our sight, and preserved us in all the way wherein we went, and among all the people through whom we passed: And the LORD drave out from before us all the people, even the Amorites which dwelt in the land: therefore will we also serve the LORD; for he is our God. And Joshua said unto the people, Ye cannot serve the LORD: for he is an holy God; he is a jealous God; he will not forgive your transgressions nor your sins. If ye forsake the LORD, and serve strange gods, then he will turn and do you hurt, and consume you, after that he hath done you good. And the people said unto Joshua, Nay; but we will serve the LORD. And Joshua said unto the people, Ye are witnesses against yourselves that ye have chosen you the LORD, to serve him. And they said, We are witnesses.

Now therefore put away, said he, the strange gods which are among you, and incline your heart unto the LORD God of Israel. And the people said unto Joshua, The LORD our God will we serve, and his voice will we obey. So Joshua made a covenant with the people that day, and set them a statute and an ordinance in Shechem. And Joshua wrote these words in the book of the law of God, and took a great stone, and set it up there under an oak, that was by the sanctuary of the LORD. And Joshua said unto all the people, Behold, this stone shall be a witness unto us; for it hath heard all the words of the LORD which he spake unto us: it shall be therefore a witness unto you, lest ye deny your God. So Joshua let the people depart, every man unto his inheritance. And Israel served the LORD all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders that overlived Joshua, and which had known all the works of the LORD, that he had done for Israel.

I respectfully submit that Your Grace meant "Islamophilia" in the penultimate paragraph.

I would observe en passant that "-phobia" implies an irrational or disproportionate fear of something. "Islamophobia" was coined by some politically correct scribe in the mainstream media, purely to disparage those opposed to the spread of Islam.

Whilst I don't fear Islam, I do wholeheartedly oppose it in all of its manifestations (for I am a Bible-believing Christian), and that opposition is not at all irrational. Thus I may be described as "Islamophobic" by detractors, but that does not make them correct, and Your Grace should not demean yourself by using their language.

It is a basic tenet of Marxism that those who control the language control the debate.

I agree. Please don't forget Political Correctness also attempts to control what we say. Besides it's attempt at rewriting the history of Western Christian Civilization and making us feel guilty for our beautiful culture the PC cultural stormtroopers create their own euphemisms (Islam becomes a "religion of peace") to replace the commonsense language of our forefathers. This is done to suit PC's new verbal needs promoting the multi-cultural disaster we all see around us today.

The King James Version of the Bible is an anaethema to at least two generations of our leadership and "intellectuals" throughout British overseas diaspora (including the USA) who have been brainwashed by so called progressives to hate their own people, culture, and religion. Even an atheist can read the KJB and appreciate it as a monument of English prose.

When the liberals and the PC crowd wake up someday from their self hating stupor Western Civiliazation will have vanished or at least gone deep underground possibly never to return. I pity the Christophobe's hangover when they wake up and realize the world they created will destroy them too.

When the light of our Civilization is extinguished there will be no place to run and hide from the barbarians whether they are indigenous or alien...

@ Jon

When you can put those daily to do list items for Naomi into pill form please send me a bottle please. TY

To my mind, The King James Bible is the one of the cornerstones of the Anglican faith, along with the Book of Common Prayer and the 39 articles... to me there is nothing more calming than a proper Evensong or Compline. Until the liberals in the Anglican Communion took over and blighted us with Women Vicars and liberal theology in order to "modern"- rot .

I meant no slight to other translations. I quite like the Douay-Rheims myself, and my preferred translation for quoting is the ESV (most of the poetry of the KJV with slightly more accessible modern grammar). Many's the time I've liked multiple translations of the same verse simultaneously (John 1:5 being the one that always springs to mind).

The KJV is not alone in being a good translation, or even an exceptionally poetic one. But it is quintessentially part of the English language, and particularly British English (I of course mean English English, but I defer for the benefit of our colonial brethren). Not surprising, as much of the KJV derives from the earlier works of William Tyndale - even down to phraseology and some of the more poetic turns of phrase (which he in turn garnered from Hebrew and Greek). It is a very British Bible.

One of the great tragedies resulting from the Anglican Church, the Episcopal Church in the USA and Scotland and all the other Anglican Communions worldwide ordaining priestesses and consecrating bishopettes is the lost chance of some sort of union and intercommunion with the Eastern Orthodox Churches and the Roman Catholic Church. This unity would have been an enormous step to restoring Christendom as it existed before the Reformation. Even the Lutherans may have become involved in this dream now lost forever. What a spiritual bulwork against the rise of Islam and moral force against Islamic Jihad that would have been!

You mentioned the demise of the hunt in England thanks to the animal rights Nazi's. I have to tell you that fox hunting is alive and well today in Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania and other parts of the USA.

"Please don't forget Political Correctness also attempts to control what we say."

That's right. Let's face it, people with a missing limb, like some of the para-olympians we saw recently, still ought to be labelled "handicapped" or "a cripple". It's Political Correctness Gone Wrong to encourage a change of label so that "normal" people are inclined to see beyond the "handicap" of "a cripple" and "cripples" are not simply defined by their "handicap". It's not as though language and thought are very closely coupled or anything.

There are many religions with many 'prophets', but there is only one Truth not many varying versions of 'the Truth')"What is Truth" said Pilate when the Truth literally stood before him.

We should respect peoples freedom to choose whatever' Prophet'rings true with them and their freedom to follow their own particular version of religion(even the secular 'prophets' with their varying faith based theories) but in the interests of Truth freedom to examine these' prophets' and their religions is paramount.

If a 'blanket' Blasphemy law is applied to all religions and the ability to question and examine all these religions is allowed then all false religions will be allowed to promote their errors and untruths without question.

DanJ0. Should this man before you ever wind up in a wheelchair, God forbid, and he hears someone describe him as ‘mobility challenged’, that individual will find something unpleasant sailing through the air coming towards them. An empty beer bottle with luck...

Do you have any idea where the term "political correctness" came from? It was the term the Soviets used after WW II when they took over Eastern Europe and was used as part of their policy to "reeducate" the populations of those countries to conform to Marxist ideology.

It is government sanctioned brainwashing to support left wing thinking and their rewriting of history to create a progressive society free from it's past.

Nay DanJ0 - I wasnae accusing you of advocating parents A & B - rather that most of the detractors of PC tend not to be motivated by a desire to abuse the disabled - and more than that, that PC is not the sole bastion of defence against such abuse.

I was slightly off on "Parents A & B" - it is in fact "Progenitor A" and "Progenitor B" that now sits on the Spanish birth certificate. California has pondered such things before - though it must be said that California seems to ponder an awful lot that seems bizarre to the rest of the world.

'When the liberals and the PC crowd wake up someday from their self hating stupor Western Civiliazation will have vanished or at least gone deep underground possibly never to return. I pity the Christophobe's hangover when they wake up and realize the world they created will destroy them too.'

this is the central themes of my forthcoming self published novel 'Darwin's Adders: A Chronicle of Pagan England 2089'. The novel's fundamental thesis (societal suicide led by Christless western intellectuals leading to something emphatically NOT a rationalist paradise) came from 'That Hideous Strength' which I notice you referenced recently.

I do not agree with you Belfastin assuming that the community has manners and common decency.10:21 Two establishment Catholic chappies on this blog enjoy animal torture so why would they halt at abusing the disable?

Your "shamless plug" was welcome! The plot of your book is something I think about often. Your plot is right on the mark and I wish you success and thank you for taking the time out to write it and do your part in defending our beautiful Western Christian Civilization and all the good it stands for and has accomplished since Pentecost.

Where can I buy it?

Are you famuiliar with the late Malcolm Muggeridge? He was an English journalist,author, satirist, and former editor of "Punch Magazine". Muggeridge attended Cambridge University, was an atheist and spent much of his life time being a cynic about life which shows in his much of his writings. Finally in his later decades he returned to the Christianity of his youth later converting to RCism. One of his "accomplishments" was "discovering" Mother Theresa and her nuns and their selfless work with the poor of Calcutta and making her work known to the world.

He said this:

"Everything happening, great and small, is a parable whereby God speaks to us, and the art of life is to get the message".

@Belfast

I simply posted the definition of Political Correctness. I didn't say Dan OJ was against freedom but anyone who supports PCness is.

JM: "It was the term the Soviets used after WW II when they took over Eastern Europe and was used as part of their policy to "reeducate" the populations of those countries to conform to Marxist ideology."

Isn't that just "right wing" propaganda? I'm afraid I have a much more prosaic view of political correctness and find the "right wing" hysteria about it a tad tedious. It's about linguistics, really. That is, language and thought are entwined and so changing language, in particular labels, can unconsciously change thoughts. For a fringe "right winger", that's really sinister, and "political correctness" becomes a sort of mantra about orthodoxy. For normal people, it just means that (say) labelling someone "handicapped" tends to encourage others to think they someone with a disability is primarily a victim to be pitied. It's a mental framing thing. The specific application of it is the issue, not political correctness itself.

Which would be admirable if that reflected the history of language. In fact, very often it has been about power and language.

Take the word "idiot", for instance. It used to be applied liberally and freely to anyone with a "mental handicap" for quite literally centuries. If we were to take the modern understanding of the term, we would no doubt deduce that during that time the mentally impaired were treated abominally. Yet, we find nothing of the sort. Idiots, we read in medieval sermons are to be pitied and well cared for. Idiots were protected by laws preventing their exploitation, and very often idiots were looked after not only by their immediate families but local government - the issue was one of caring for those in one's parish.

Language of course changes constantly - there's no question about that, I hope. But what political correctness amounts to is not an evolution of language so much as an attempt to impose a linguistic changes, and with them a narrative that paints all who are not involved in the endeavour (including previous institutions) as pitted against progress.

It's not a means of making people think of each other in a humane way - it's a political claim on language that increasingly defines itself not by how one relates to other people, but how one talks about other people.

Incidentally, political correctness as both a concept and a practice is one of the great products of modern academic life. It has its roots in a now largely abandoned view that language shapes action and thought (there are now more nuanced models that manage a better account of phraseology and figurative speech).

What's really interesting is that while the Academe has moved on - sometimes explicitly so - as the theoretical basis for justifying conscious political correctness has been eroded, the instutions have not, and are in fact substantially mired in the policing of language (but I won't bore you all with moans).

Atcually I didn't go back in time far enough. The term Political Correctness goes back to the 1920's and it it of course 100% Marxist in origin but the term was used by the Soviets after WW II in Eastern Europe where they had to create little USSR's:

Political correctness grew out of Communism and dates back to the 1920s.

A Hungarian Marxist called Lukacs realised what the major difference between Russia and the West was the belief in the individual, and the uniqueness of each person. Both concepts come from the Christian belief that each soul is unique creation in the mind of God. Political correctness is Marxism transferred from economic into cultural terms. It came out of a Communist Think-tank, the Institute of Social Research (ISR) which was founded by a Marxism and was originally to have been called the 'Institute for Marxism' but was re-named to cover up its association with Marxism. It became know by the name Frankfurt School, which sounds innocuous until you learn about its aims.

Classical Marxism says that everything can be explained by and blamed on one cause - the ownership of the means of production. It follows that workers and peasants are the 'good guys' and that bosses are 'bad guys'.

Cultural Marxism is similar, it says that all of history is determined by power and which groups of people had power over others. Nothing else matters, everything in history was about one thing, the groups having power. So, certain groups are good - feminist women, blacks and homosexuals - and because all have at some time been victims at some time they are 'good' regardless of anything that they might do. That means that white males and automatically evil making them analogous to the bosses in economic Marxism.

Two Marxist theorists went to work on defining Political Correctness: Antonio Gramsci in Italy and Georg Lukacs in Hungary. Gramsci said the workers will never see their true class interests, as defined by Marxism, until they are freed from Western culture, and particularly from the Christian religion - that they are blinded by culture and religion to their true class interests. Lukacs, who was considered the most brilliant Marxist theorist since Marx himself, said in 1919, "Who will save us from Western Civilization?" He also theorized that the great obstacle to the creation of a Marxist paradise was the culture: Western civilization itself.

Polical Correctness is simple. It means having the correct political view which is a left wing or Marxist point of view. It's that simple. Not being PC means you don't agree with a left wing or Marxist view of history, economics, or class.

Stand up to the PC thought and speech police and you are called a "hater". How does our concept of freedom of speech jibe with PCness? It can't.

You're not wrong in identifying the importance of Marxism (though Freudianism is equally important in terms of the role of "Critical Theory"), but it's worth noting that its use by the USSR should be regarded as a distinct, if distinctly similar, manifestation from its use by Western intellectuals. The modern usage of Political Correctness traces its origins to thinkers heavily influenced by Marxism, but considerably at odds with the USSR (if I remember correctly, there were some early links to China, but they were hardly along the lines of being a direct product of the Cultural Revolution).

In that sense, Marxism is an important (though not the sole) idea in the formulation of PC, but not so much the USSR.

It's also worth noting that a good number of present-day intellectuals who are on the left are also opposed to PC (including some who were instrumental in its induction - not unlike some of the original founders of Human Rights legislation).

To my mind, the most insidious aspect of it has been its capacity to dominate the way we think about social relations - in a very short space of time (less than 50 years) it's gone from an explicitly revolutionary idea that was conscious of its newness, to one that presents itself as indispensible to the management of identity politics. The idea that without PC, we tend towards persecution and hatred. It must be said, we probably do tend towards persecution and hatred with greater ease than we'd care to admit, but the critical thing, which is now largely accepted, is that it's not a lack of control of language that causes this - which is the principal which underpins PC.

I am not being silly Inspector. If you had not admitted you have never harmed a cat it would be very easy by your contant vilification of them and claims of cruelty to assume you have been guilty of animal cruelty. This is a blog. We do not know you personally and cannot know that underneath you are just a jolly old racist codger.You are probably neither a rascist nor a homophobe , made evident by your servile affection for a coloured homosexual communicant on this site.However you might remember that bloggers are judged solely by their written expression.

John, I'm afraid I'm similarly dismissive of the Cultural Maxism and Frankfurt School thing and for much the same reason. It seems to be the latest fringe "right wing" theme, I've even heard Nick Griffin trying to sound intelligent and "academic" about it. The Internet has a lot to answer for sometimes.

That's not to say there's not some truth in it. There's inevitably some truth in narratives like that. However, the "tin foil hat" bit is the supposed power that is assigned to it, and the black and white thinking it tends to encourage. The fringe "right wing" needs its diametric opposite to justify itself, whether it's Jews and New World Orders, or Cultural Marxists plotting the overthrow of Western Civilisation.

I'm not saying that political correctness is about linguistic determinism, just that language, and in particular labels, influences thought. Most people realise that, I think. Labels acquire and accumulate meaning and in areas like identity politics those meanings lend themselves to stereotypes. It's ironic that "political correctness" as a label has followed the same path.

At some point, someone usually raises Newspeak when political correctness is under discussion. Of course, Newspeak is rather different to the reality. Controlling or managing labels is not the same as controlling and subsequently reducing language itself.

"I'm not saying that political correctness is about linguistic determinism,"

Ah but it is about linguistic determinism. It was consciously based on it.

Political Correctness is not something that randomly popped up - it was consciously designed, and it was consciously designed to shape behaviour by controlling language. It's not even a secret that has to be deduced by paranoid observers: it was a stated part of the project.

What your talking about with words acquiring meaning is a little different. PC is a deliberate attempt to frame language precisely for the reasons you outline. The problem with it is, as some of its original proponents now acknowledge, the theoretical basis for it even working was off, and what we've ended up with is - within particular spheres - precisely like Newspeak.

Language is always different from reality. It's not the "connection" to what is real that differentiates acquired meaning from PC - it's the political will behind the latter, which has been endlessly (and unthinkingly) reproduced by institutions that have taken it up.

It won't take anyone with a search engine, some fairly obvious search criteria, and a couple of minutes to spare to see the truth or otherwise of that. Otherwise, in this case. As for political correctness being an issue of freedom of speech, John, that's not true in any meanngful sense either, is it? At one time, describing immigrants to the UK with brown or black skin as "coloureds" was pretty normal, and not necessarily malicious. Having people raise an eyebrow now, recognising that it implies a white / not-white way of thinking, is not suppressng freedom of speech in its normal sense of openly expressing ideas.

Non white and coloured are interchangeable terms and in my mind the term ' coloured' is perfectly acceptable even though it is non pc.I refuse to participate in the ludicrous pc game which is language artificially createdto curb freedom of speech,to stifle natural discourse by making it socially unacceptable and to use it as an indoctrination tool .PC my friend is a vertically challenged, non caucasian,welfare recepient and transgendered person.NON PCmy friend is a short ,coloured, drag queen on the dole

Uncle Inspector, the Jamaican family across the road are having a garden party. You’re invited ! There’ll be rum, jerk chicken, rap music and dancing, and everything

“Not really the Inspector’s cup of tea you know, but you go and enjoy yourself”

...is really about the extent of the Inspector’s racism (1). More discerning of the company he keeps than anything else. Who’s the coloured homosexual, not that young fella Sambo. Really didn’t know he was gay. Wouldn’t say one was servile to him, just appreciative of his brevity...

(1) Of course, when they’re rioting it’s “throw them out and don’t let anymore in”

There's no need to actually ready Nineteen Eighty-Four to know why the political correctness as raised here isn't actually even in the same ballpark as Newspeak. Though it would probably help. The gist of it is readily available as a useable summary all over the place.

I'd sketch the history of political correctness (in the West - see above for the USSR as a separate phenomenon) like this:

It has two connected, but distanced, perhaps even estranged, "parents":

The first is a number of groups working on identity politcs - chiefly feminists, and particularly in the States, race movements. It's from this cohort - who were very loosely connected in an organisational sense, and more like "kindred spirits" reading the same books at the same time - that we get the term "political correctness". In its inception, it was largely along the lines that DanJ0 has outlined: a use of language to frame ideas in order to challenge perceived inequalities. It was based on an idea, then heavily prevalent, that language shapes thought. Most of these groups were not interested in controlling language for the sake of control, but out of an honest belief that doing so would improve race or gender relations (and later sexual identity relations). In fact, most of these groups had very little actual political control of their own.

I cannot emphasise enough that in that context, the idea of "political correctness" was largely envisaged to be self enforcing. Indeed, although it's a close thing, there's a credible argument that the earliest use of "political correctness" in a pejorative sense was among these groups. What they wanted to do, perhaps a little naively, was to have a language that showed they were serious about meeting social injustices.

It's also worth emphasising that the descendants of these groups are very wary of imposed PC - even though they retain a strong preference for demonstrating their ideological position through language, and at the popular level, a sort of vague remnant of the language-determining-thought thesis (though most of the theorists have moved on).

The second "parent" is the likes of the Frankfurt School - a broad intellectual collection which again cannot be reduced to some kind of adjunct of Stalin, but which nevertheless was heavily, consciously, influenced by various forms of Marxism, and sought (and still seeks) to implement forms of cultural Marxism. A central part of this does involve controlling not just language, but the terms of debate, and the terms of criticism. The resulting "Critical Theory" is, quite simply, not antithetical to instituting a particular form of cultural Marxism. It's not a one trick pony - I'm not suggesting it's just Lenin dressed up - but it is an undeniable part of its heritage, and its continuing development.

The problem is, that Critical Theory was the chief lens through which the activities and attempts of the first parents were not only conceived but originally analysed. What that means is that attempts to create a new language within groups, bore within them certain assumptions that owe to the school, but to a greater extent acquired a sort of "charge" in their reception by the Academe. So it's not necessarily that "political correctness" can be reduced to a single organisation's desire to take over the West, but on the other hand it is intrinsically related to particular claims, firstly by smaller affiliated groups for largely laudable aims (if misguided means), and secondly by an intellectual consensus that saw part of its work as being to undermine key elements of Western culture (even if only in a very "intellectual" kind of way).

It's only when we have this happening that we start to see, in the mid-1970s, but especially during the 1980s, and reaching a zenith in the States by the beginning of the 1990s, an attempt to implement PC within institutions. Universities, and with them university graduates, government advisors, and within a short space of time, governments themselves, taking the idea that controlling language controls behaviour and backing it up with institutional measures. It's here that I'd identify the rise of political correctness as something Orwellian - though more like Brave New World actually, because I don't think it was so much a Big Brother figure behind it, as a kind of unthinking enthusiasm for control. Nobody could accuse University administrators of being the harbingers of the Revolution!

There's a lot more that could be written on this - but the really salient point for me is that many of the original proponents in the first parent group have come out in direct opposition to political correctness. I actually like Kristeva's comment: "I can no longer recognize myself.", because it captures the extent to which political correctness has in many ways become a mirror of itself, detached from its origins in reasoning how to change society. In fact, as I've said above, the linguistic reasoning has largely eroded - few would think that controlling language is in fact possible. What remains, and what many feminists and Civil Rights campaigners now find equally disturbing, is the enforcement of PC through institutions - as I said, in certain spheres, it's more dominant than others. In the public arena, I'd actually say it's pretty weak, in fact.

The second parents also tend to be ambivalent: not because they've given up on wanting to critique Western culture in order to create the foundations for a new order, but because they too recognise that linguistic control ain't too great, and requires institutional power to be rendered effective - power which they see as being in the hands of the enemy.

My own take is that PC is insidious precisely because it is no longer centrally controlled, but continues to be institutionally assumed. I regard the first parent group as having behaved perfectly rationally, in a manner that only appears misguided with hindsight, and for generally laudable (if perhaps occasionally too ideologically-driven) reasons.

The second parent group knew and continue to know what it is their doing - but again are not a club for Stalinists, and could find plenty of reasons to lament the use of PC by existing institutions to which they are opposed. I'd imagine that some would be fine with PC in the new order, and many are probably reasonably content with the way that PC has been a vehicle not for achieving control of language, but as a means of confirming certain analytical perspectives. But that said, we're always being told that Critical Theory is now dying, so perhaps there too there would be some ambivalence as to its effectiveness.

"Feel free to not participate as you wish. Having people raise an eyebrow, or even walking away disgusted, doesn't stop some people using the word "nigger" either. It just loses them polite company."

I'd agree with this sentiment with a couple of minor qualifiers.

Firstly, so long as the disgust is based not on linguistic use but intention. I know plenty of older people whose use of language is "incorrect", but whose intended use of the terms is merely descriptive. A film like This is England is quite good on that issue - I've often thought it would make a good class to watch it through and look at how the meaning of the same "racial slurs" change from friendly banter to precipitating violence. What I object to is in active abuse - causing intentional offense. Simply getting flustered at the sound of a particular word because it has now become verboten strikes me as being more than a little bit neurotic, and frankly, leads precisely to the kind of detachment from reasoning I describe above.

Oddly enough I encountered this once in a highly amusing fashion when discussing gay marriage and quoting an idea from a "Queer Theorist", only to be told in persistently outraged tones that my use of the word "Queer" was a clear sign that I was in fact a grossly offensive individual.

Second qualifier would be that I am fine with people deciding to shun one another within society - I am not in any way fine with institutions seeking to shun me on society's behalf, or to sanction those who hold particular views, express certain ideas, or - and this is a uniquely PC issue - express ideas in a certain way.

Polite company is such a broad term and the way you are probably using it Danjo would not be polite at all in my estimation.Pretentious and vacuous would probably be more of a descriptor. Belfast is right it is neurotic to get flustered over a word which is not de rigueur this season.

I agree entirely with your last paragraph Belfast. Incidently 'queer' is such a wonderfully evocative English word. The PC police are not only conformist bland without any appreciation of semantics seem hell bent on ruining the English language.Probably run by evil jealous French persons.

Fancy our Belfast being pummelled with cabbages for using the word 'queer'.Of course if one works for any government or academic instituition one is compelled to use all theseludicrous meaningless phrases conjured up by semantic sadists .

Inspector I was not referring to Sambo(whoever that is) I was referring to Anna Anglican/Hannah Jewess as the coloured homosexual, subject of your servile affection.

The term "queer" for homosexual is basically like "nigger" for black people. Gay people tend to be a bit sensitive about it because most of us have either experienced it as verbal abuse or heard it being used on someone else as verbal abuse. Some unfortunately hear it while they're being booted in the head or such like by homophobic thugs. It doesn't bother me particularly on forums but it just makes me think of the same sort of people who use "nigger" to insult black people.

'Colored' implies a white norm for the population. As in "There is the norm, and then there are deviations from the norm." Why use it if it offends people? The English language is flexible and robust enough to provide plenty of words to describe different racial groupings. It is a little thing to avoid words that needlessly offend.

OIG said:

Of course, when they’re rioting it’s “throw them out and don’t let anymore in”

And the ones who were born here? Oh, wait. Lemme guess. There is a causative connection between skin color and propensity to riot.

I am happy you are reading about the Marxists in the Frankfurt School of Critical Thinking created in Germany back in the 1920's. In their writings they openly published over and over their hatred of European Christian culture and the European Christian diaspora in places like the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and parts of Latin America. PCness has it's roots in left wing racism. Karl Marx once atcually wrote that he considered people like the Highland Scots, the Basques, and the Czechs among others as "worthless" people. I have to find that quote for you. PCness is culturalism Marxism at work in our society today doing its best to muzzle people who are proud of Western Christian European Civilization.

These German Marxists all fled Nazi Germany by 1939 and fled to the USA. OF ALL PLACES FOR MARXISTS TO FLEE! Why didn't they travel the short distance to Stalin's USSR?

The Franfurt Marxists spread their Communist filth and infiltrated the best universities in the USA from the 1940's until today.

@ Dan JO

In the USA blacks call each other "n***er" all the time both in their daily lives as well as in Rap music lyrics. So why is it fine to use a word they claim is the worst possible racist insult they can be called if only used by whites and turn around and call each other the same name constantly?

@Inspector

These liberal multi-cultural, enthusiast phonies will boast about their tolerance toward black Jamaicans and other non whites to let you know how superior white liberals are and what low life racists they imagine you and I are because we treasure our individual nations past history, our people, and culture . At the same time I can guarantee these same British liberals will look down their long Anglo Saxon noses at Polish Catholic immigrants (and other Eastern European Catholics or Orthodox Christians)who happened to have a neighborhood party sharing good Polish Kielbasa and sauerkraut along with pierogies and sour cream... and a good polka band too!

"It doesn't bother me particularly on forums but it just makes me think of the same sort of people who use "nigger" to insult black people."

And that's surely the key thing. Generally it's quite clear when someone is being insulting. It's certainly possible to perceive particularly sensitive words as being more intimidating than they might be intended to be - especially if someone has been assaulted by thugs. But even if perception is magnified it's not usually completely without basis: I think most people are aware of when they're being insulted, or when language is being used to offend or to be derogatory, even if it may not be the prelude to a physical attack.

Good manners are universal - and generally speaking most people who have simply been insensitive, rather than deliberately offensive, will be capable of retracting and apologising. But it's a far cry from recognising the use of a word to intimidate, and the idea that a word is itself offensive. It's how we reach that latter mindset that is where PC comes in: it's how someone can think that talking about Queer Theory is not only "offensive" by association - but an indication that the person using the word is little better than the kind of brutal thugs who go around hunting down gay people.

That's not a linguistic phenomena that crops up "naturally" - it's a part of the way in which "Political correctness [...] produces a moral drama, involving the oppressed and the oppressor, in which the oppressed demands recognition of their suffering." (Martin E. Spencer "Multiculturalism, 'Political Correctness', and the Politics of Identity' Sociology Forum 9.4 (1994): 559-60).

That's how political correctness is intended to function: it's designed to be a linguistic method of playing out how a particular identity group feels, and to invert the relationship so that "the victims are morally superior to their oppressors" (Spencer 560). It's actually quite smart in many ways - and if I had more time, I'd love to write something connecting it with, of all things, hagiographical writing where persecution plays a key part in confirming the moral attributes of the saint.

The danger is summed up thus: "Much of [the] form [of PC] appears to represent an impulsive reaction to impressionistic personal discomfort and shame. As such, this rapidly growing psychological matrix is targeted at anyone who makes behavioural, lifestyle, gender, sexual, or racial remarks with which proponents of an opposing conviction disagree." (Doris Wilkinson. "Transforming the Social Order: The Role of University in Social Change." Sociology Forum 9.3 (1994): 333)

DanJ0 is absolutely right to observe that the accusation of political correctness can function in the same way - to close down debate. In that sense, it can be disconnected not only from its historic origins, but the identity groups that originally fostered it. My own concern is that in addition to being a very illiberal way of approaching the regulation of language, it runs the risk of simultaneously trivialising and distorting the power of language to describe real situations, and to intervene in serious problems, like the thugs beating up gay people.

Because if everyone who uses the word "Queer", regardless of context, is a potential thug - if language is given license to stand as if it is violence - then we have a world suddenly enlarged with thugs - at once preposterous and terrifying, and in which, I submit, the thugs intent on smashing in the face of another human being, are, paradoxically, freer to move about.

The Frankfurt School is indebted to Marxism, and it is indebted to Freud. There have certainly been adherents who would condone violent suppression, or advocate violent Revolution, but it could hardly be said by any objective measure that the purpose of the School was to bring about such things. As I said, they were actually treated pretty coolly by the USSR - I suspect because most of them were middle class intellectuals, who tended to be amongst the first rounded up in the cities as Soviet power expanded.

Quite a number of them would probably not only have been unwelcome in the USSR, but would have, in any case, been opposed to the particular manifestations of Stalinist Russia. It's also really easy to view the situation with hindsight - I don't think it was at all clear at the beginning of the rise of the Soviets that they would inevitably be worse than the Tsars. We have to accept that there were people who genuinely, and for all the right reasons, thought that Marxism was the only realistic way of improving the lot of the poor. That's not to say that all were sucked in - any more than some of us were sucked in by the original reporting of the Arab Spring, but it takes a particularly hard heart not to at least hope that a moment of change might be for the better.

I'm also not sure that I agree with the idea that they infiltrated universities - most were there because they were intellectuals in their own right. Believe it or not, the USSR also continued to have universities, and not all of its output was Pravda-esque, any more than all of the output of Western universities was dyed-in-the-wool laissez-faire free marketeering. In fact, I think I'm right in saying there were USSR infiltrators in the Frankfurt School - mostly because the authorities didn't trust them!

As regards the response to this - I have come to firmly believe that the answer to ideologies that are in some way incompatible with other Western traditions, or with elements of Christianity, are not best answered by trying to shut down the opposition or deny them platforms. One of the most persistent criticisms of Critical Theory is that it tears down without finding itself obliged to provide alternatives - that it is consciously destructive rather than creative. That's a caricature in any case, I think, but if we do accept the criticism it is surely incumbent upon us not to repeat it? The answer to cultural Marxism is more thinking of our own - thinking that can unashamedly set out an alternative stall, so to speak. That will almost certainly mean fighting on some of "their" territory - though this is no bad thing if it means that those opposed to Marxism have to think about how they might relate to the poor - but it also means choosing some battlegrounds of our own. Actually, I'd say that the greatest successes in popular culture have been over the ideas of freedom - even if they've sometimes provoked more questions than they've answered.

One thing we should not be tempted to do, though, is revert to the kind of intellectual thuggery of McCarthyism. I have absolutely no problem with intelligence services providing robust defence against both internal and external forces who are arrayed against our intellectual, social, and democratic freedoms, not least that of life. But I am very much against the kind of witch-hunts that characterised American campuses long before political correctness haunted them.

"In the USA blacks call each other "n***er" all the time both in their daily lives as well as in Rap music lyrics. So why is it fine to use a word they claim is the worst possible racist insult they can be called if only used by whites and turn around and call each other the same name constantly?"

It's usually understood in terms of identity - as a member of the group, you are "licensed" (implicitly) to use language that is offensive on the lips of a non-member. It's a kind of play in language that reflects social segregation. Actually, it's a good example of why language does not directly limit thought: as it relies on the pre-existence of the group to work (in other words, there needs to be a clear group identity for the word to function as it does). The "euphemism treadmill", where the term that is acceptable today becomes offensive tomorrow, is equally fascinating - and is probably best summed up by observing that when the usage by one side reaches a critical mass, it is no longer "owned" by the other. Usually that's when a term gets used more by those outside the group end up using it more than those within the group - and so a new term comes out within the group to differentiate them from "outsiders". But it can also work in reverse - with groups deliberately adopting a term of abuse as a badge of pride, as (I think?) with "Nigger", certainly with "Queer" in the context of Queer Theory, and, as it happens, Christian.

Cressida. The use of the term coloured in the UK is only of recent (since 1942) use. It has been applied to negro and negro half breed types, not Jews. The ‘servile affection’ you note is merely one of understanding a young women who is coming to terms with who she is. You might have noticed she has recently changed religion. Can you find it in your hard heart to allow for this.

Carl. Every month in the UK, there is a TV programme called ‘Crime Watch’. It is an hour long. The program includes a rogues gallery of wanted faces. Half of them are black. The population of the UK is not half black. Why is there a greater propensity for serious crime with these people ? If you can work it out, let the Inspector know, but please, no bullshit. In the meantime, he will continue to state his rule of thumb – “The darker a man’s skin, the bigger the potential problem”. To be frank, the Inspector is somewhat SICK AND TIRED of your head in the sand attitude.

John. You are a blast of fresh air sir. Your posts are valued by this man...

Every month in the UK, there is a TV programme called ‘Crime Watch’. It is an hour long. The program includes a rogues gallery of wanted faces. Half of them are black. The population of the UK is not half black. Why is there a greater propensity for serious crime with these people?

Perhaps because the producers of the show prefer to show black criminals? Just a thought. Far be it from me to suggest that television would deliberately do such a thing.

To be frank, the Inspector is somewhat SICK AND TIRED of your head in the sand attitude.

You mean my "People with dark skin aren't by definition criminals" attitude? Yes, I get that.

I value your traditional and common sense perspective from the your home on the edge of the beautiful Cotswolds in the UK.

Years ago in 1987 we visited the Cotswolds. Are you familiar with St. Mary's Church, Fairford Gloucestershire? It still has all it's beautiful Medieval stained glass. The west window in this parish church is still intact and is spectacular.

Other memories include Chipping Campden, Moreton on Marsh, Broadway. Hidecote Gardens and south of the wonderful city of Bath we visited Downside Catholic Benedictine Abbey and school. Lots of nice places I can't remember anymore.

Inspector having lived exclusively in a Jewish enclave for ten years I am aware that Jews are not coloured people or are called 'coloured' Anna /Hannah declared that she could easily be mistaken for a Pakistani and her twin sister was the subject of rascist remarks being calle"Paki" People who have lived in other cultures rather than spending their lives propping up a bar at the local pub tend to get a few more insights into the real world.

I think maybe the reason the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory followers didn't migrate from Nazi Germany to the USSR was because they had heard of Stalin's Great Terror of 1937 -1938 as well as the show trials and the mass executions of "old Bolsheviks" and the fake trials of Red Army Generals and officers and the resulting mass murders of these loyal pariotic Russian soldiers (what kind of country would kill it's own best soldiers by the tens of thousands) These "Frankfurters may have been Communists but they had enough common sense to stay of of Stalin's USSR of the late 1930's.

A comfortable academic life at some fine university in the USA after 1933 spreading their nasty Communist poison here teaching the "evils" of capitalism was much more attractive to these German Marxist theorists than living under REAL Communism in the USSR.

Typical left wing hypocrites.

The USA saw the fruit of these German Marxists we took into our country as refugees from Nazi Germany. Their ideas had infected and surfaced in American universites by the late 1960's and we are still suffering from their influence today. The "Occupy Wall Street Movement" is part of this legacy.

I do not know you at all Dodo and you seem to me to be the type of coward who would enjoy torturing anything or anyone for sport.I also do not appreciate your hateful contemptuous comments directed at me.

JM: "In the USA blacks call each other "n***er" all the time both in their daily lives as well as in Rap music lyrics. So why is it fine to use a word they claim is the worst possible racist insult they can be called if only used by whites and turn around and call each other the same name constantly?"

Firstly, what's the point in being all twee all of a sudden about the word "nigger"? It being in quotes is surely enough? That's one good thing about the Guardian, they don't mess around with words like that, unlike (say) the Sun which is otherwise happy to publish all sorts of dubious stuff.

Secondly, I'm surprised I need to explain what's going on there. In some ways, it is similar to some of the reasoning behind Gay Pride marches. I'd rather they did not use the word, and I'd rather gay people didn't use "queer". I don't think it helps. But hey.

But anyway, back to "coloured". It's a word which has fallen out of common use in that context now. However, I don't think that many people realise why some people felt uncomfortable about it. I think as soon as it's explained then it ought to become obvious and ought to trigger reflexive action even if a decision not to change is made.

To somewhere like down here in the comments area, the white/not-white thinking thing seems to be fairly acceptable, perhaps because of the "blood and soil" thinking down here. I'm uncomfortable using the word "black" except in discussions like this because it lumps people with often very different cultures together under skin colour. Political correctness, as we normally understand it, makes me sensitive to that, and I actually think that's a Good Thing.

Carl. Perhaps because the producers of the show prefer to show black criminals? Just a thought. Far be it from me to suggest that television would deliberately do such a thing.

The program is made by or for the BBC. One of the most PC enslaved organisations there are. Interestingly it sets out as a somewhat last point of call to target criminals, and thus leaves the PC business outside the door. It is to be commended for that.

Another interesting point to be made is about you. On one hand, we have your icy cold logic. On the other, your emotive side. Your literal belief in the bible, predestination, and your denial of the link between extreme crime and race. Very curious.

John. St Mary’s church would probably be a wool church, of which there are a multitude in the Cotswolds. Beautiful buildings paid for out of the fortune Cotswold wool brought to the local economy in the middle ages. One’s own favourite is the parish church in Cirencester. There is so much natural light in that church, from its clear windows. We can grudgingly thank the reformation for sparing these wonders from destruction which was the fate of the monastic buildings in the area.

Jewess...Not such an offensive term that your niece/friend/lover? was deterred from using it to describe herself in one of her posts.As for readng up on things Lord Loser, maybe you should research the characteristics of a gentleman.Your parody so far is unconvincing.

Lighten up young lady, dash it, you seem to have many years of youth left and it would be better spent being less irksome and rude to people...although if you wish to waste your life in such a fashion than damnably up to you old girl.

Hi Lord LoosaChi cento ne fa una ne aspettiJust returning the compliment old thing.(verbatim)Unctuous captious old frauds are definitive of all things irksome.Hugs and Smiles and best regards to the Bedouin Brady Bunch

It still has to attract an audience. Crime shows have to allow the viewer to put distance between himself and the crime. Otherwise the induced anxiety can cause the viewer to turn the channel. One very easy way to do that is to skew the presentation of race. Never trust a TV show in terms of demographic presentation. There is always market research behind it.

Another interesting point to be made is about you. On one hand, we have your icy cold logic.

Why, thank you. Although it should be stated that logic is neither hot nor cold but rather consistent or inconsistent. Many people refuse consistency because they would rather simultaneously hold to inconsistent ideas. The effort to maintain consistency is thus interpreted as being 'icy' and 'cold.'

On the other, your emotive side.

My what? Do I still have one of those? I thought I had successfully crushed it beneath the indomitable force of will. (This was a little joke btw.)

Your literal belief in the bible, predestination, ...

You think I hold to these things in the face of logic? You think I hold to them on the basis of emotion? You. Couldn't. Be. More. Wrong.

... and your denial of the link between extreme crime and race.

I deny a causal link between race and crime. Do young black men commit a disproportionate number of crimes? Yes. The question is "Why?" Black men do not commit crimes because they have black skin. Or because their lazy ancestors stayed behind in Africa while all the industrious white people emigrated. Or whatever that theory was you mentioned several months back. There are much more obvious reasons. Like father absence for instance. As the pathologies in the black home move increasingly into white homes you will see a parallel crime profile develop in young white men. We are all the same under the skin after all. We are all capable of the same vices and the same virtues. That's basic Christian anthropology.

No one can deny the USA Department of Justic's own statistics that Blacks and Hispanics who according to the 2010 census were 21% of the population of the USA were also convicted of 68.7% of all murders commited in the USA in 2011.

In other words 21% of the population is commiting almost 70% of the murders.

At least 52% of those in prison in the USA are Blacks and Hispanics with almost all being repeat offenders.

The statistics for rape and robbery are much higher.

I don't think it's an unwarranted fear for me to be worried when walking in certain sections of large American city at any time of the day or night and I see a Black or a group of Blacks or Hispaaics approch me that I should worry about for my physical safety or worse.

This isn't racism it's common sense.

By the way, Black on Black murder rates are over 93%, so innocent Black people have to worry, and they do, about Black on Black crime.

We can't help people by glossing over inconvenient facts and pretending this does not exist.

Bravo John, for coming out with those US crime figures. The comparable figures in the UK is that black men are 7 times more likely to be consigned to prison that a white man. If the entire UK population was black, that would raise the prison population from 90,000 to 650,000. Even then, we are not sending repeat offenders like burglars to prison as often we should. The prison population here should be raised to 120,000. This includes scraping of the ridiculous 50% remission for good behaviour for sentences under 5 years. But of course, we could save expensive prison places with the revival of ‘capital murder’, which at the same time would save many innocent lives.

It is significant that the beast who lured 2 women police officers to their deaths in Manchester did not elect to go out in a blaze of glory. A final shootout with armed officers. Nor did he consider suicide. No, he just walked into the nearest police station and surrendered himself. He opted for three square meals and use of the prison gym. He’ll get 40 years for what he did. What is the bloody point of locking a man away for that amount of time, when a hangman could despatch him in under a minute. To use that phrase, closure for all.

Don’t expect Carl to come back too quickly on race and crime. Since he appeared on this site, he quite happily puts others right, but when it comes to taking on board common sense...

John. The theory is thus. Current scientific thinking is that all non negro people can trace their origins back to just seven homo sapien sapien females who left Africa about 140,000 years ago. To survive in the new lands, the people had to learn to do something they never had to do before – co-operate. All our culture and heritage of worth comes from co-operation. Even now, co-operation is still an alien concept to black Africans. If they want something, they take it, and if violence is required, that’s no problem. The idea of all working in unison to achieve a goal is beyond them. Furthermore, the natural nuclear unit over there is the tribe not the man woman family. Once a black man has impregnated a woman, he moves on to the next. It is the female members of the tribe’s responsibility to raise the child until puberty. He is then handed over to the men to make a warrior out of him. This is what European colonists found 350 years ago.

The idea that a race of people can change their innate behaviour in such a short space of time is ludicrous, no matter how much Carl would wish it so. There is hope though with African Americans. Over time, the population has had much needed input of non negro genes over time, albeit originally in the form of rape. These people so resulting are now achievers as can be noted with the number of black college professors, and indeed the greatest example of the lot, Obama, for all his faults. Contrast him with Mugabe, who behaves exactly as one would expect from the theory. He is the tribal chief, a king, and he behaves exactly as a medieval European king did. The strict hierarchy of the tribe demands obedience, not the collective consensus of co-operation.

IQ is simply the measurement of average intelligence and is not 'determined' by 'race', although there is a genetic component to it. Intelligence is not unevenly distributed amongst different ethnic minorities. As for cooperation, across the globe all homo sapiens do so, and most pair bond regardless of tribal structures. The development of adaption and conceptual skills, as well as fine and gross motor skills, and problem solving capacity, has a foundation in early life experiences. So too does ones moral and ethical sense of right and wrong.

The causes of the disproportionate representation of black people in crime figures is sociological, not biological. Decades ago in Britain it would have been the Irish; in American probably the Italian. The lower you are in the social order the more likely your group will be over represented in things such as poverty, ill-health, homeless, poor education, crime,imprisonment etc. Not because of genetics but because of early life experiences and probably poor parenting.

Have on read about how children raised in care, regardless of 'race', fair in life.

As professing Catholics do have a read of the Church's social teachings. Disagree if you please, but do so from an informed position.

Dodo, you missed out that all Africa’s problems stem from white colonisation. No other reason of course.

In the 1980s and 90s, it was the done thing for American black college professors to have an extended vacation in Africa. They wished to explore the notion that black Africans had a superior approach to life, that was cruelly suppressed by white colonisation. A bit like the Roman’s in Britain except in reverse. The idea was a book would be forthcoming. The books were never written.

Do google ‘Black IQ’ old chap. Don’t want you to be tarred as prejudicial and scientifically ignorant you know. IQ increases through brain development. You develop the brain through using it in thought and co-operating with others. Swathes of African’s come out with IQs of around 70. To give you an idea of that as a handicap, it is accepted that if your IQ is less than 85, there is no point sending you to college. You would not gain from it. Instead, you get by taking what others have. And if they object, you kill them. It comes as no surprise to learn that the lower the IQ, the less empathy you have for the welfare of others. They are seen as competitors, rivals, who in your life would be of no consequence. Now, does all this explain extreme black violence to you ? Does it not also explain the complete disdain African rulers have for their people ?

DanJ0. Did a lot of reading on this subject last year during and after the young blacks of Jamaican descent and their mates, youthful poor white trash, were breaking windows and looting a couple of miles away (qv Gloucester riots 2011). Had an idea where it was all leading of course, but the theory finally fell into place then.

Fascinating subject. Was surprised to find that this man’s view of the causation of low IQ seems to be his idea alone. Still, what do you expect of a highly controversial subject which is practically professional suicide for all but the most determined academics.

One problem encountered, lots of bull from apologists for black behaviour like Dodo at 16:02. Lots of that about, it’s for ‘balance’ you see.

The phrase ‘the truth is so appalling, no one must ever know’ comes to mind.

If you do decide to research further, happy hunting. The truth is out there...

Race is always an interesting point to test the claims about "political correctness" - the original premise of creating a language that wouldn't embody racism was that language itself was directing the way we think about things. New terminology had two advantages in this way of thinking: one it was new, and so didn't come with any cultural baggage, and two, it could be shaped to reflect only a "positive" idea, rather than incorporating negatives.

As I've said maybe five times in this thread, that's because the theoretical background of politically correct language was based on a theory of language that we now recognise as being insufficient.

Hence "coloured". In fact, as my post at @28th Sep 23:23 tried to outline, the use of language is far more complicated - and unsurprisingly, when "coloured" became the word of choice for more than just "coloured" people, it was already on the wane. These kind of language games will always occur (which should be sufficient basis to reject the naive hopes of the origin of PC language) - in fact, it doesn't take much more than a shred of common sense to realise that if it has been decreed that one word is offensive, those who seek to cause offense will gravitate towards that word. PC becomes insidious, however, when the word itself stands for the person who causes offense: it makes it harder not easier to distinguish between the two when we focus on the linguistic "sign" of the word, and not what it means contextually, and what it was used to do.

For the literal minded - and their institutional cousins the Courts - that means seeking out misuse of language as a sign of one's moral depravity. For the more reflective, though, there are still pitfalls. Indeed, I think I would say that the only cultural work that PC does in its own right is to create a kind of hyper self-consciousness about language. It suddenly means being aware that the appearance of that man with African heritage in a group shot for a bank advert might not be there because the bank actually employs a solitary individual with non-caucasian skin colour at each branch, but because it has to be there. How does one distinguish between a statement made in genuine agreement with a position, and a statement made because it must be made?

Until an identity group doesn't actively seek to "own" language used to describe it, you are never going to have non-offensive language. Even if the claim that PC reinforces segregated identity is a dubious one - it certainly does nothing to ameliorate it. It can't: attempts to hold language will always slip. The only way "non-offensive" language will exist is when nobody wishes to cause offense.

In that sense, the first principle of PC - to create a more egalitarian society through language - must be regarded largely as a failure. What we have left is institutional acceptance of PC through control of language - the success for which is determined by how, and how well they enforce that control. That's what's Orwellian about it - not its basis (which is simply misguided), but how it has been adopted and employed. More like "Brave New World" than 1984, though.

Missing the White Man's Burden, eh, OIG. Reminiscing about black men in white coats serving tea to their betters in the Club. How fortunate for you that you were born white. But then, racial superiority can be a terrible burden. Much is expected of those to whom much is given.

And do you really think that African Americans were genetically improved by rape? Really? I wonder if that might be a legal defense. "I wasn't raping her. I was selflessly improving the gene stock of her race." The burdens of racial superiority can indeed be massive.

As I've understood you, you'd be content with a system that more explicitly keeps different races in hierarchy because of IQ differences between them.

Why make it into an issue of race then? Why not simply one of IQ? After all, if a general trend is sufficient, a specific one is surely better, and would avoid any injustices caused against say, a smart Irish Catholic who "bucked the trend". Oh - don't you like that example? No? Because it's not that long ago that Irish Catholics were regarded as being a separate race too. Indeed, almost every argument you've adduced to your cause was used to keep Irish Catholics down a century ago. Know your place and let your racial betters rule over you - you wouldn't have found such a viewpoint out of place amongst 19th Century Protestant landowners. Indeed, incredible as it may seem, some even suggested that only the genetically corrupt rural Irish would have been so stupid as to have been taken in by Catholicism! What more proof could we need?

No there's a more important point here: let's say that everything about race and IQ being linked is true - a point which isn't by any means particularly wild or fanciful. So what? You want to keep them as a kind of underclass, ruled by white people? Why? Since when does being smarter than someone grant you the right to rule over their lives? When has IQ ever meant the right to deprive those "beneath" you of the fundamental status as a fellow human?

The medieval French knew this: "cretin" was "Christian". Even those with chronically low IQ possessed full personhood as Christians, created by God. Our Lord does not give us gifts to abuse them. He also does not limit His gifts to those with high IQ. Are you really concerned about stopping high crime or low educational attainment amongst non-white ethnic groups? Or are you just looking for an excuse to hold yourself up as better?

The casual observer will note that Carl has introduced a word hitherto not used in this exchange – ‘superior’

Now look, old chap, you really need to read more into British Colonial Administration. The British Empire was run using less troops that some unstable Balkan country used for it’s own internal security, as someone once observed. If you did, you might get to appreciate that being a black man in a white coat serving administrators in their club was a highly prized position. Not that being out of work was the worst thing that could have happened to a native. In Empire days, EVERY African who was fortunate to live in a British colony got fed. Of course, trendy liberal socialist writers today tend not to make a point of that. You see, it gets in the way of their ‘exploitation’ agenda.

Oh look, there you go again. “genetically improved”. Your words, not the Inspectors. An owner having sex with his slave women is hardly news. But it did have the effect of introducing European genes into the black gene pool. Not arguing the rights or wrongs here, it happened. Looking back it seems unfortunate now, but so does the Titanic. Interestingly, when slavery was abolished after your civil war, the freed slaves adopted their former master’s surname. After all, they had a rightful claim to be of his family, though extended as they were.

Belfast. Your stunning intellect impresses as always. At least you do not disappoint.

Belfast. let's say that everything about race and IQ being linked is true - a point which isn't by any means particularly wild or fanciful. So what?

Exactly ! But it would help us to manage in the future. For example, the Inspector realises that more policing resources are required for black areas. Maybe up to 4 times that of whites. We can stop giving young black teenagers are hard time for lagging at school. Let’s start educating them to be van drivers or labourers, or anything else in their ability range, not office workers.

You will not find this man as ever stating on this blog he is superior to anybody. Be they black, muslim, born again types or protestants.

I have no problem with an education system that doesn't get precious about turning every student into a maths professor. As someone who favours a selective system, I think there's a lot to be said for not constantly measuring people to highly academic standards - which are in any case usually quite detached from reality - and either determining that a large number of people are "failures", or artificially levelling the playing field so that everyone is a "success".

I'd also not dispute the need to take seriously the fact that certain ethnic minorities are more likely to be found guilty of committing crime. I'm not at all clear that this can be linked with "race" - precisely because the scientific basis for what "race" actually is is quite different from the categories of "race" used to define crime stats. The Irish Catholic example is quite pertinent here: would we discover that Irish people are more likely to commit certain types of crime if we started measuring for it? We only subdivide results according to the definitions we widely use. In fact, it's perfectly possible, particularly amongst multiethnic areas like London for someone to possess non-caucasian skin pigmentation but have a majority of genes from another "racial" heritage - or vice versa. But only the gene that determines skin colour will matter for our statistics.

On that note, it's very difficult to see "white" races as being as genetically pure. There's a growing body of evidence to suggest that there were non-white people in England in reasonably substantial numbers long before it has been traditionally supposed. I'm sure you saw the remarkable discovery that many people in Yorkshire possess African DNA a few years back. Friars from North Africa were by no means unheard of in England as early as the 11th Century - which when you think about it, really shouldn't be that surprising given that we had a substantial, and by definition originally non-native Jewish population.

On reflection, I've been more than a little intemperate towards you in the above posts. I have to admit to being more than a little influenced by the events around Nick Griffin at the Covenant Day celebrations - both in terms of his own attempt to hijack the present-day event, and the appalling blind-side that many Unionists have given to the past by pretending that Griffin's politics have no equivalent in historic Irish Unionism. Although you and I do not agree on this issue, I hope you will accept my apologies for the tone of my post, which was unnecessarily rude.

I had to Google both of those terms, which only speaks to my growing realisation of the extent of my ignorance when it comes to Jewish custom. I'm very flattered - though I'm afraid my only party trick does better with a bit of extra arm room...

"I would not say you are ever intemperate or rude here (especially compared to others here)."

I am often both, I'm afraid. I try to avoid letting it leak into writing - but I know when I've been rude, even if it's only in my head. Thoughts as well as deeds are important (Matthew 5:22).

Dodo, we should add to your Irish Catholic male list of accomplishments"we are also cowardly and besides slagging off at women and kicking cats,if we do not have support for our beliefs and opinions we invent a support group." Gosh,the support group thing sounds very Anna/Hannah, enlisting a tribe of spear carriers as back up.

Christians like me(whatever that means Anna/Hannah, ) are not obliged to be door mats and receive unprovoked abuse graciously..unlike homosexuality a perversion which we have come to tolerate, sadism and masochism are perversions which we do not.

Just a pointer,naughty lesbian pole dance tent teasing under religious camouflage is only for sad old deprived men of dubious intellect.You should be more discerning about your targets..some men here are not of the former category and are not impressed with dim coy airheadspretending to be anglican/ jewish lesbians as a bad joke.

Your stance is entirely hypocritical.If you really wished 'that things did not get so personal' you would refrain from using insulting terms like stroppy teenager and bringing into question my Christianity. I can only think you enjoy your contrived notoriety being a serial self promoter.1. I am not a teenager2. I am not a silly person3. You are a coloured lesbian who labels herself a jewess. 4. These are factual disclosures made by you not insults created by me.

Belfast, old fellow. You are far too much of a gentleman to come over as rude. Even if that was your intent. However, if you’re looking out for tips on how to be, one is sure Carl will help you out and give you the benefit of his vast experience :->

Heh. Personally I find the presentation on British TV of the Stereotypical American to be hysterical. But one thing is true. We don't fool around much with understatement and euphemism, and so we often get called "rude." You know. Like when we call racist claptrap by its proper name.

Is telling the truth and giving the gov'ts own statistics somehow "racist claptrap"? When will the excuses stop and let's look at the situation with honesty and stop blaming whites for the collapse of black society after almost 50 years of civil rights laws, hiring preferences, endless gov't "prograns", padding grades in schools that create uneducated adults, giving welfare to support teenagers having babies, rampant hard drug use, fatherless homes with a mother raising the children, gang warfare that kills thousands, a pop culture that degrades women, youth who no concept of a work ethic, etc, etc, etc. I'm not a fan of euphemisms either. I like old sayings that make common sense such as: "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink".

How can you help people who are at the bottom of the heap socially by constantly making excuses for their self destructive behavior?

Isn't being a Chrtistian about individual repsonsibility and promoting public morality?

For far too long types like Carl find it convenient to ‘move on’ to the next topic. Personally, one is determined to pull down the cosy screens erected by people to cover up for what is disgusting, uncivilised and frequently violent behaviour, WHOEVER is responsible. When it comes to blacks, the solution can only come from inside their community. After all, those types will not listen to us, racism being of course, a two way street. Until they can get their act together, they merit the sternest of punishment including mandatory execution for capital murder. Summed up as ‘Behave or eventually die before your time’, if you will.

Funnily enough it was the guy who was being racist who thought everyone with black hair, olive skin and brown eyes was from Pakistan or India (forgetting Spanish, South Americans, Greeks, Arabs, Israelis, Italians etc).

I did look up the word coloured and it comes from South Africa's Apartheid to describe people who have white and black parentage and the word is now mostly considered to be pejorative in both Britain, the US and certainly South Africa, although it seems some African-Americans will use the word to describe themselves.

Coloured is not a word I would us to describe myself, but you are correct my parents were a white Anglo-Irish man and an Iraqi woman - a "Jewess", so in that sense I am the product of an apparent mixed racial marriage, (my dad did convert to Judaism).

I would describe myself as a gay, British Jew, of Jewish parents and proud to be so.

I don't really wish to discuss anything with you anymore and if you don't bring me in as a discussion point( as you did with this thread), neither of us will have to engage one another again.

I have no real desire to fight you and anyway I have already forgiven you for the times when you have hurt me in the past, so in that way I apologise for calling you a teenager and the issue of questioning your own faith.

Agreed...so do not refer to me on any discussion threads, something which you have done on several occasions unprovoked in the past. For some reason people like you and your uncle think they can throw stonesand then get upset when they are hurled back.I am not very good at cheek turning.I am one of those Christians that does not support masochism.

About His Grace:

Archbishop Cranmer takes as his inspiration the words of Sir Humphrey Appleby: ‘It’s interesting,’ he observes, ‘that nowadays politicians want to talk about moral issues, and bishops want to talk politics.’ It is the fusion of the two in public life, and the necessity for a wider understanding of their complex symbiosis, which leads His Grace to write on these very sensitive issues.

Cranmer's Law:

"It hath been found by experience that no matter how decent, intelligent or thoughtful the reasoning of a conservative may be, as an argument with a liberal is advanced, the probability of being accused of ‘bigotry’, ‘hatred’ or ‘intolerance’ approaches 1 (100%).”

Follow His Grace on

The cost of His Grace's conviction:

His Grace's bottom line:

Freedom of speech must be tolerated, and everyone living in the United Kingdom must accept that they may be insulted about their own beliefs, or indeed be offended, and that is something which they must simply endure, not least because some suffer fates far worse. Comments on articles are therefore unmoderated, but do not necessarily reflect the views of Cranmer. Comments that are off-topic, gratuitously offensive, libelous, or otherwise irritating, may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on any thread does not constitute their endorsement by Cranmer; it may simply be that he considers them to be intelligent and erudite contributions to religio-political discourse...or not.

The Anglican Communion has no peculiar thought, practice, creed or confession of its own. It has only the Catholic Faith of the ancient Catholic Church, as preserved in the Catholic Creeds and maintained in the Catholic and Apostolic constitution of Christ's Church from the beginning.Dr Geoffrey Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury, 1945-1961

British Conservatism's greatest:

The epithet of 'great' can be applied only to those who were defining leaders who successfully articulated and embodied the Conservatism of their age. They combined in their personal styles, priorities and policies, as Edmund Burke would say, 'a disposition to preserve' with an 'ability to improve'.

I am in politics because of the conflict between good and evil, and I believe that in the end good will triumph.Margaret Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher LG, OM, PC, FRS.(Prime Minister 1979-1990)

We have not overthrown the divine right of kings to fall down for the divine right of experts.Harold Macmillan, 1st Earl of Stockton, OM, PC.(Prime Minister 1957-1963)

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.Sir Winston Churchill, KG, OM, CH, TD, FRS, PC (Can).(Prime Minister 1940-1945, 1951-1955)

I am not struck so much by the diversity of testimony as by the many-sidedness of truth.Stanley Baldwin, 1st Earl Baldwin of Bewdley, KG, PC.(Prime Minister 1923-1924, 1924-1929, 1935-1937)

If you believe the doctors, nothing is wholesome; if you believe the theologians, nothing is innocent; if you believe the military, nothing is safe.Robert Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury, KG, GCVO, PC.(Prime Minister 1885-1886, 1886-1892, 1895-1902)

I am a Conservative to preserve all that is good in our constitution, a Radical to remove all that is bad. I seek to preserve property and to respect order, and I equally decry the appeal to the passions of the many or the prejudices of the few.Benjamin Disraeli KG, PC, FRS, Earl of Beaconsfield.(Prime Minister 1868, 1874-1880)

Public opinion is a compound of folly, weakness, prejudice, wrong feeling, right feeling, obstinacy, and newspaper paragraphs.Sir Robert Peel, Bt.(Prime Minister 1834-1835, 1841-1846)

I consider the right of election as a public trust, granted not for the benefit of the individual, but for the public good.Robert Jenkinson, 2nd Earl of Liverpool.(Prime Minister 1812-1827)

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.The Rt Hon. William Pitt, the Younger.(Prime Minister 1783-1801, 1804-1806)